Appeal No. 2005-1708 Page 3
Application No. 10/370,122
rejections and to the brief (filed August 5, 2004) and reply brief (filed December 22,
2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 as being anticipated by Niaura.
Independent claim 1 expressly recites that the fixing component comprises a base, a
stem, and a fork which are “made as a single piece.” The examiner concedes on page
3 of the answer that Niaura’s cylindrical portion 9 and U-shaped strap 10, the structure
relied upon by the examiner as responding to the base, stem and fork of the fixing
component in appellants’ claim 1, are made of two pieces connected together (see
column 4, lines 1-3). The examiner, however, takes the position that “[t]he mere fact
that a given structure is a single piece does not preclude its consisting of two separate
pieces [joined] together.” For the reasons stated on pages 5 and 6 of the brief and page
2 of the reply brief, the examiner’s position is not well taken. Two separate pieces
joined together do not form a structure “made as a single piece.” Accordingly, claim 1 is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007